PDA

View Full Version : Justine is not the Federer of wta


saniapower
Nov 15th, 2007, 08:19 PM
Justine is not the Federer of WTA by any means. Federer is the Best male tennis player ever born n will remain the best for ever and ever. If federer takes it seriously n gives his best nobody on earth can beat him. The fact is that in the nonslams sometimes due to fatigue he cant give his best n thats why he is vulnerable in the nonslams. But federer reserves his best for the slams n nobody can challenge him n he will surely win the FO oneday. Remember he has already defeated Nadal on Clay.
How Henin can be the Federer of WTA who cant win the Wimbledon? :lol: If Sharapova was fully fit she would have defeated her in the YEC final. I think Venus is far better than Henin on grass

Princeza
Nov 15th, 2007, 08:21 PM
Ok

Sefo
Nov 15th, 2007, 08:21 PM
Link?

CrossCourt~Rally
Nov 15th, 2007, 08:22 PM
True, Justine did not lose any matches at the YEC Champs this year :p

Anyways, yes... Venus is better that Justine on grass. Just like Ralphie is better than Federer on Clay. Venus is the best on Grass on the WTA Tour, but Federer is the best grass court tennis player since BORG and Sampras..IMO.

John.
Nov 15th, 2007, 08:22 PM
Thanks :)

DragonFlame
Nov 15th, 2007, 08:23 PM
yada yada yada yada do you actually have anything usefull to say?

eck
Nov 15th, 2007, 08:26 PM
okifusayso.

evan2907
Nov 15th, 2007, 08:27 PM
Justine is just herself, nothing more, nothing less.

griffin
Nov 15th, 2007, 08:29 PM
Indeed. She's not nearly as boring, and she doesn't own a cow.

Harvs
Nov 15th, 2007, 08:31 PM
federer doesnt win roland garros but?

IceHock
Nov 15th, 2007, 08:33 PM
Justine is not the Federer of WTA by any means. Federer is the Best male tennis player ever born n will remain the best for ever and ever. If federer takes it seriously n gives his best nobody on earth can beat him. The fact is that in the nonslams sometimes due to fatigue he cant give his best n thats why he is vulnerable in the nonslams. But federer reserves his best for the slams n nobody can challenge him n he will surely win the FO oneday. Remember he has already defeated Nadal on Clay.
How Henin can be the Federer of WTA who cant win the Wimbledon? :lol: If Sharapova was fully fit she would have defeated her in the YEC final. I think Venus is far better than Henin on grass


Ok bud what about Federer never winning Roland Garros? What about Justine having a better record than him this year, how about Justine not losing a set at her last 2 grand slams, how about Justine who doesn't even have a decent rival because she's so much better than the current WTA, unlike Federer who has challengers in Nalbandian and Nadal.

AcesHigh
Nov 15th, 2007, 08:44 PM
Ok bud what about Federer never winning Roland Garros? What about Justine having a better record than him this year, how about Justine not losing a set at her last 2 grand slams, how about Justine who doesn't even have a decent rival because she's so much better than the current WTA, unlike Federer who has challengers in Nalbandian and Nadal.

Justine doesnt have a rival because they're all injured/inconsistent/out of shape(Sharapova, Mauresmo, Venus, Serena).

I don't see why anyone tries to compare the two. There is no comparison.

eck
Nov 15th, 2007, 08:47 PM
Indeed. She's not nearly as boring, and she doesn't own a cow.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

jujufreak
Nov 15th, 2007, 08:47 PM
Justine doesn't want to be the female Federer, she was a lot more impressive, compared to Roger this year :cool:

IceHock
Nov 15th, 2007, 08:48 PM
Justine doesnt have a rival because they're all injured/inconsistent/out of shape(Sharapova, Mauresmo, Venus, Serena).

I don't see why anyone tries to compare the two. There is no comparison.



It's not Justine's fault that those players can't stay healthy and when she has played them this year, she is undefeated against Mauresmo, Sharapova, and Venus, and only 1 loss to Serena. Even if they were healthy, Justine's best is better than all four of those you mentioned.

AcesHigh
Nov 15th, 2007, 08:51 PM
It's not Justine's fault that those players can't stay healthy and when she has played them this year, she is undefeated against Mauresmo, Sharapova, and Venus, and only 1 loss to Serena. Even if they were healthy, Justine's best is better than all four of those you mentioned.

And this was shown last year, right?

Henpova
Nov 15th, 2007, 08:52 PM
Justine is not the Federer of WTA by any means. Federer is the Best male tennis player ever born n will remain the best for ever and ever. If federer takes it seriously n gives his best nobody on earth can beat him. The fact is that in the nonslams sometimes due to fatigue he cant give his best n thats why he is vulnerable in the nonslams. But federer reserves his best for the slams n nobody can challenge him n he will surely win the FO oneday. Remember he has already defeated Nadal on Clay.
How Henin can be the Federer of WTA who cant win the Wimbledon? :lol: If Sharapova was fully fit she would have defeated her in the YEC final. I think Venus is far better than Henin on grass

First of all Henin has not done as much a Fed. Well know that. Yet she is the closest thing we have to him. 2nd you can't say Henin will never win Wimbledon. She has been to the finals twice and simi three times. Also Venus is the best grass court player when she is fit and she is not fit that much any more. Henin has a better win lose record then Fed this year. Last you can not say Sharapova would of won the YEC if she was fitter, just like you can not say Nadal would of won Wimbledon this year if he was fitter. You just don't know. :rolleyes:

IceHock
Nov 15th, 2007, 08:53 PM
And this was shown last year, right?

I'm talking from this year on, her best is clearly better, she has improved her game even more, you look at the YEC final, she was playing terrible the first two sets while I thought Maria was playing pretty good and she still almost won in straights, her game has obviously gone up a whole another notch, that right now noone has showed they can match her at that level.

harloo
Nov 15th, 2007, 08:53 PM
Indeed. She's not nearly as boring, and she doesn't own a cow.

Hmm, I think many tennis fans will disagree with you here.:tape:

Henpova
Nov 15th, 2007, 08:56 PM
And this was shown last year, right?

Well yeah it was. Juju was just getting back to the player she is after a few years of sickness and injury. At the end of the year, she took out what looked like a unstoppable Sharapova and beat Momo in the finals of the YEC. She showed she was best. Last year was a stepping:bounce: stone.

Nicolás89
Nov 15th, 2007, 09:04 PM
Indeed. She's not nearly as boring, and she doesn't own a cow.

jelous of the cow griff? ;)

and Justine is the federer of wta AT THE MOMENT because she wins almost everything like federer used to.

Ninny
Nov 15th, 2007, 09:10 PM
Hmm, I think many tennis fans will disagree with you here.:tape:

I don't! :)

AcesHigh
Nov 15th, 2007, 09:12 PM
Well yeah it was. Juju was just getting back to the player she is after a few years of sickness and injury. At the end of the year, she took out what looked like a unstoppable Sharapova and beat Momo in the finals of the YEC. She showed she was best. Last year was a stepping:bounce: stone.

:lol: Mauresmo won 2/4 slams if I remember correctly. Sharapova defeated her at USO. Just getting back? I think you're a year or two off.

Sharapova made it to the final to face Justine but hadnt played since USO. Hardly a barometer of her best.

AcesHigh
Nov 15th, 2007, 09:13 PM
I'm talking from this year on, her best is clearly better

How is it clearly better? Do you have any matches to prove this? It's been a bad year for all of Justine's rivals and not because of her.

Ninny
Nov 15th, 2007, 09:16 PM
How is it clearly better? Do you have any matches to prove this? It's been a bad year for all of Justine's rivals and not because of her.

OMG! :haha: That's right, they all beat themselves :rolleyes:

Sefo
Nov 15th, 2007, 09:20 PM
She can't dominate Maria Sharapova. Maria lost because her game went straight down in the 3rd, not because Justine stepped it up hers.
Fed can dominate everyone on that tour.

Ninny
Nov 15th, 2007, 09:22 PM
She can't dominate Maria Sharapova. Maria lost because her game went straight down, not because Justine stepped it up hers.
Fed can dominate everyone on that tour.

What's their H2H?

goldenlox
Nov 15th, 2007, 09:22 PM
Fed can't dominate Nadal or Nalbandian.

thrust
Nov 15th, 2007, 09:23 PM
People, when tennis players-commentators compare Justine with Roger it is their STYLE of play they are talking about, not their accomlishments. As it happens, this year, Justine has had nearly as good a season as Roger has.

AcesHigh
Nov 15th, 2007, 09:36 PM
Fed can't dominate Nadal or Nalbandian.

He has dominated Nalbandian. He's just had a hot streak lately.

He CAN dominate Nadal, except on clay. It's mainly a mental thing against Nadal.

IceHock
Nov 15th, 2007, 09:39 PM
How is it clearly better? Do you have any matches to prove this? It's been a bad year for all of Justine's rivals and not because of her.


lol ok. Let's see Justine has been in 6 of the last 7 grand slam finals she has played, 25 match win streak, won 9 out of 13 tournaments that she has played, once again it's not her fault the williams, sharapova, and mauresmo have been out of shape, even when she's played them this year she only has 1 loss combined between the 4. You want matches, how about USO quarterfinal and semifinal, eastbourne final and YEC final.

AcesHigh
Nov 15th, 2007, 09:39 PM
People, when tennis players-commentators compare Justine with Roger it is their STYLE of play they are talking about, not their accomlishments. As it happens, this year, Justine has had nearly as good a season as Roger has.

I agree. As a big Fed fan, I and most fans I think see similarities between their game. Justine is the closest to Federer in style of play.

However, they aren't that similar. Justine's best shot is her backhand.. that's Fed's worst shot. Roger has one of the best serves on tour, Justine doesnt. Roger can outhit anyone on tour and has a myriad of offensive weapons. Henin has become more offensive, but can still be outslugged from the baseline. Yet, other than Justine no one else even comes close to Fed.

thrust
Nov 15th, 2007, 09:40 PM
She can't dominate Maria Sharapova. Maria lost because her game went straight down in the 3rd, not because Justine stepped it up hers.
Fed can dominate everyone on that tour.
H-H Justine leads Maria 6-2. Nadal leads Roger 7-4. The only player on the tour Justine has a losing record with is Venus when Justine was very young and had not yet won a Slam.

AcesHigh
Nov 15th, 2007, 09:44 PM
lol ok. Let's see Justine has been in 6 of the last 7 grand slam finals she has played, 25 match win streak, won 9 out of 13 tournaments that she has played, once again it's not her fault the williams, sharapova, and mauresmo have been out of shape, even when she's played them this year she only has 1 loss combined between the 4. You want matches, how about USO quarterfinal and semifinal, eastbourne final and YEC final.

Justine has been the best player this year.. easily. HOwever, you said her best is obviously better than the best of her rivals. Mauresmo has been horrid this year, and although the Eastbourne final was high quality, it couldl have gone either way. SErena was not at her best clearly at USO quarterfinal and Wimbledon quarterfinal. The semifinal was high quality but again, Venus started terribly and ended terribly. Sharapova had months off between USO and YEC.

Is Justine clearly teh best player at the moment? Of course. Is her best clearly better than the best of her rivals? No, that hasn't been proven yet. I'd like to see what happens in 2008.

Forehand_Volley
Nov 15th, 2007, 09:44 PM
Justine doesnt have a rival because they're all injured/inconsistent/out of shape(Sharapova, Mauresmo, Venus, Serena).

I don't see why anyone tries to compare the two. There is no comparison.

When players are so dominant that they don't have a rival, its not by accident but by design. The last person who had as good, if not better than Henin's 2007 winning percentage was Steffi Graf in the 1990's. During that period, Steffi didn't have a chief rival either.

You obviously don't understand the concept of dominance. Here, I'll show it to you in numbers.

In 2007:

Henin v Mauresmo: 2-0
Henin v V. Will 1-0
Henin v S. Will 3-1
Henin v Sharapova 1-0
Henin v Jankovic 7-0
Henin v Ivanovic 2-0
Henin v Kuznetsova 3-1
Henin v Chakved 2-0
Henin v Bartoli 2-1

24-2 vs top ten + Mauresmo = 92% winning percentage

You are correct. Federer shouldn't be compared to Henin in 2007. Roger Federer has lost more matches and hasn't won as many tournaments as Henin in 2007. Henin even went undefeated during the YEC, and Roger couldn't.

And I'll tell you for umpteenth time. Stop using the "injury excuse" for players who have chronic injuries. The Williams at this years US Open was probably the most blatant they've been about their "excuse-o-rama" in a long while and even the press picked up on it and trampled Serena with it. All of the top ten have lingering health issues which they'll battle until they stop playing tennis.

The fact of the matter is that no one in the WTA was good enough to derail the little train called "Juju." And considering that Henin has played in 11 (winning seven of them) of the last 20 grand slam finals (since and including the year of her first grand slam title in 2003), you will find it very difficult to minimize that result as being "lucky."

Let's take that a step further. Since the AO of 2003, Henin has played in 17 grand slam events, making it to the finals of 11 of them.

IceHock
Nov 15th, 2007, 09:46 PM
Justine has been the best player this year.. easily. HOwever, you said her best is obviously better than the best of her rivals. Mauresmo has been horrid this year, and although the Eastbourne final was high quality, it couldl have gone either way. SErena was not at her best clearly at USO quarterfinal and Wimbledon quarterfinal. The semifinal was high quality but again, Venus started terribly and ended terribly. Sharapova had months off between USO and YEC.

Is Justine clearly teh best player at the moment? Of course. Is her best clearly better than the best of her rivals? No, that hasn't been proven yet. I'd like to see what happens in 2008.


Ok i'll agree with you on that, I shouldn't have said cleary better but I do think she has the best game out of them nowadays.

Sefo
Nov 15th, 2007, 09:47 PM
I haven't seen Justine once at the net in a 3.5h ass long match.

Fed met the 6'10" Karlovic in the Basel SF. I mean, every other serve of this guy were aces. And he comes to the net like magnet too. Still, Fed beat him in straights. I don't see Justine winning Wimbledon past Venus.

It's bad when people only pull out the numbers and the stats too see who's dominating who.

VivalaSeles
Nov 15th, 2007, 09:51 PM
He has dominated Nalbandian. He's just had a hot streak lately.

He CAN dominate Nadal, except on clay. It's mainly a mental thing against Nadal.

He can. He has. The thing is: he DOESN'T. At least, at this moment in time.

Federer vs Nalbandian 8-8
Federer vs Nadal 5-8

Henin vs Sharapova 6-2

VivalaSeles
Nov 15th, 2007, 09:58 PM
. I don't see Justine winning Wimbledon past Venus.


She does not have to beat Venus. Venus is inconsistent even at her best tournaments. Let's not forget she almost lost to Kudryavtseva and Morigami. Venus can play fabulously but also dreadfully.

propi
Nov 15th, 2007, 09:59 PM
Federer is not the biggest tennis player yet. Shouldn't be like this in a couple of years though

VivalaSeles
Nov 15th, 2007, 10:06 PM
Just to make things clear:

. Juju, IMHO, had a more dominant 2007 than Federer and, as a result, out-rogered Roger himself.
. However, even as a Juju fan, I must admit Juju is still far from reaching Federer's status. IMHO, Federer will soon become the best male player ever, surpassing Mr. Full-of-Himself-Sampras or Mr. Nobody-Will-Crush-My-Records-Pete. The same cannot be said of Juju.

DimaDinosaur
Nov 15th, 2007, 10:16 PM
Justine is not the Federer of the wta because unlike federer, Justine is pure sex :drool:

eck
Nov 15th, 2007, 10:17 PM
I haven't seen Justine once at the net in a 3.5h ass long match.

Fed met the 6'10" Karlovic in the Basel SF. I mean, every other serve of this guy were aces. And he comes to the net like magnet too. Still, Fed beat him in straights. I don't see Justine winning Wimbledon past Venus.

It's bad when people only pull out the numbers and the stats too see who's dominating who.

You weren't looking hard enough :o


BTW, to whoever that said Ju has a bad record against Venus only, she also trails Safarova 0-1

Sefo
Nov 15th, 2007, 10:18 PM
Justine is not the Federer of the wta because unlike federer, Justine is pure sex :drool:

lol

Ninny
Nov 15th, 2007, 10:26 PM
I haven't seen Justine once at the net in a 3.5h ass long match.

You cannot be serious? :eek: Did you forget to put your glasses on or contacts in? :tape:

1st game of the match 40-15 Justine came to the net and hit a nice cross-court volley.

2nd game in the match she came to the net.

That's only the first two games of the match and she came to the net twice. Don't know which match you were watching but it certainly wasn't the YEC 07 final between Justine Henin and Maria Sharapova :lol:

thrust
Nov 15th, 2007, 10:37 PM
If Justine had a first serve percentage of about 60%, she would be nearly unbeatable. That, I think, is the main reason she cannot dominate the way Roger does or the way Serena did at her best.

spencercarlos
Nov 15th, 2007, 10:38 PM
Justine doesn't want to be the female Federer, she was a lot more impressive, compared to Roger this year :cool:
Delusional much? 3 GS > 2 GS in a year..

:wavey:

new-york
Nov 15th, 2007, 10:41 PM
Justine is the closest thing to Fed currently.
Her season is the most impressive season we have seen in a while.
add the bonus one handed backhand and the comparison are very expected, and pretty logical.

She has to keep it up to benefit from a Fedesque status though, but at this rate, she might come close in some years, if she keeps it up and if her main competition doesn't catch up.

These days i see more players having a chance to pull out the upset against Rogi than against Joost.

spencercarlos
Nov 15th, 2007, 10:45 PM
Just to make things clear:

. Juju, IMHO, had a more dominant 2007 than Federer and, as a result, out-rogered Roger himself.
. However, even as a Juju fan, I must admit Juju is still far from reaching Federer's status. IMHO, Federer will soon become the best male player ever, surpassing Mr. Full-of-Himself-Sampras or Mr. Nobody-Will-Crush-My-Records-Pete. The same cannot be said of Juju.
See above.
All 4 grand slam finals, winning 3 in one year. Something that no player from this generation man or woman have done, not even Sampras :lol:

Sefo
Nov 16th, 2007, 12:35 AM
You cannot be serious? :eek: Did you forget to put your glasses on or contacts in? :tape:

1st game of the match 40-15 Justine came to the net and hit a nice cross-court volley.

2nd game in the match she came to the net.

That's only the first two games of the match and she came to the net twice. Don't know which match you were watching but it certainly wasn't the YEC 07 final between Justine Henin and Maria Sharapova :lol:

Hey I'm not a video recorder, ok? She probably came to the net, but nothing worthy to retain, that's why it's skipping me. It was nothing like the Vee match in the USO, when Justine hit past Venus at the net many times. I only remember a beautiful Maria cross-court BH passing shot, but none from Justine.

esquímaux
Nov 16th, 2007, 12:54 AM
:n:

supergrunt
Nov 16th, 2007, 01:06 AM
She would be if it weren't for Venus and Serena who cast doubt about whether or not Justine is the best at her best. :) You know that Federer is going to win if he is playing well, no matter how his opponent plays.

moon
Nov 16th, 2007, 01:08 AM
:lol: at people actually believing that Justine is anywhere near Federer.
He is the best all time. She is the best this year. end of story.

supergrunt
Nov 16th, 2007, 01:21 AM
If it were Serena winning everything than they would compare her to Federer, so I guess its only fair. :tears:

wicked0987
Nov 16th, 2007, 01:29 AM
Indeed. She's not nearly as boring, and she doesn't own a cow.

If you meant what I think you meant, you sir/madam, are brilliant :lol:

Lunaris
Nov 16th, 2007, 01:42 AM
Justine is not the Federer of WTA by any means. Federer is the Best male tennis player ever born n will remain the best for ever and ever. If federer takes it seriously n gives his best nobody on earth can beat him. The fact is that in the nonslams sometimes due to fatigue he cant give his best n thats why he is vulnerable in the nonslams. But federer reserves his best for the slams n nobody can challenge him n he will surely win the FO oneday. Remember he has already defeated Nadal on Clay.
How Henin can be the Federer of WTA who cant win the Wimbledon? :lol: If Sharapova was fully fit she would have defeated her in the YEC final. I think Venus is far better than Henin on grass
Rod Laver is widely considered as the greatest male player of all times, not Federer. I would also place Borg higher than Fed just because he won RG-Wimbledon double three times in a row, which was extremely difficult due to the difference between the two surfaces at that time. Roger isn't going to win RG anytime soon if his backhand continues to break down under pressure of Nadal's forehand topspin. Besides I expect better competition for Federer at next years RG, not only Nadal. As for Fed's one claycourt win against Nadal in Hamburg, if you are such an expert you surely know Nadal was quite exhausted in that match and more importantly the surface there is quite fast comparing to RG courts, which naturally favours the Swiss.
You are right that Justine is no Federer but why do you insist she can't beat Venus on grass is beyond me, especially when you see that Venus is far from her best health wise.
Also this concept "Federer is the Best male tennis player ever born n will remain the best for ever and ever." is totally ridiculous. Barring the fact that Fed isn't the best ever, are you a seer who can foretell future?

plantman
Nov 16th, 2007, 01:52 AM
:lol: at people actually believing that Justine is anywhere near Federer.
He is the best all time. She is the best this year. end of story.

2007--The year of the Williams:haha:

'She is the best this year".....07, 06, 05 :lol: :lol:

Apoleb
Nov 16th, 2007, 02:03 AM
Going undefeated since Wimbledon, even though it's a great acheivement, isn't enough to earn you a comparison with Federer. He has dominated the men's tour for more than FOUR years now. Let's wait at least a year to see whether Justine can continue her run.

I do believe the comparisons between Justine and Roger are apt, but not because of their results and records. But because I think they are similar and unique tennis-wise, basically because they are excellent in almost every shot in tennis, and use their whole repertoire to win matches. I don't think any other player is as versatile (while being good at it) as those two are.

ZeroSOFInfinity
Nov 16th, 2007, 02:16 AM
Federer is Roger. Henin is Justine.

One is a male. The other a female.

One plays in ATP. The other plays in WTA.

One is a Swiss. The other a Belgian.

One has won Slams except FO. The other won Slams but not Wimby.

So, there's no point comparing them. No matter how you do it, they are unique in their own way. There's no "Federer in WTA" or even "Justine of ATP". It's just... humble Roger or workmanlike Henin. That's all.

DaMamaJama87
Nov 16th, 2007, 02:23 AM
Sorry. Pick another male player. Federer is too dominant. Who cares if he lost in the smaller tournaments if he wins 3 slams and made the final of the fourth. Justine would gladly swap her 10 titles and no losses since July stat for Federer's 7 titles including 3 slams. Federer also is the most precise server on the men's tour PERIOD. Justine has one of the most unreliable serves in the top 10 and possibly top 20. Nope. No comparison at all.

mboyle
Nov 16th, 2007, 02:29 AM
Justine would gladly swap her 10 titles and no losses since July stat for Federer's 7 titles including 3 slams. Federer also is the most precise server on the men's tour PERIOD. Justine has one of the most unreliable serves in the top 10 and possibly top 20. Nope. No comparison at all.

I'm not really sure. Justine only played 3 of the slams this season. I think she would have won the Oz. Your assertion about her serve is a gross exaggeration. Bartoli's, Jankovic's, Chakvetadze's, Peer's and Hingis' serves are all demonstrably less reliable and less powerful than Justine's.

DaMamaJama87
Nov 16th, 2007, 02:32 AM
I'm not really sure. Justine only played 3 of the slams this season. I think she would have won the Oz. Your assertion about her serve is a gross exaggeration. Bartoli's, Jankovic's, Chakvetadze's, Peer's and Hingis' serves are all demonstrably less reliable and less powerful than Justine's.

What kind of an argument is that? 3/4 > 2/3 and besides all slams count, if you miss one, that's your problem. So really 3/4 > 2/4. I'm sure Justine would rather have another real slam than just think hypothetically that she might've won Oz if she played.

mboyle
Nov 16th, 2007, 02:40 AM
What kind of an argument is that? 3/4 > 2/3 and besides all slams count, if you miss one, that's your problem. So really 3/4 > 2/4. I'm sure Justine would rather have another real slam than just think hypothetically that she might've won Oz if she played.

3/4 is numerically higher than 2/3, but it's not a fair comparison. I also think Justine would rather have 2/3 slams plus YEC plus the best record in women's tennis in 20 years rather than one more slam and a pedestrian record outside of the slams. Federer did not dominate his competition this year. Plenty of people beat him. Justine has a winning record against everyone this year except Safarova--which was in her first tournament back and whom she didn't play again the rest of the year.

Justine was more dominant this year from a numerical standard. However, there's no question in my mind or anyone else's mind that Federer's career has been a level above Justine's thusfar.

dybbuk
Nov 16th, 2007, 02:44 AM
The threadstarter seems to want to worship Fedtard more than anything else. :scratch:

DaMamaJama87
Nov 16th, 2007, 02:49 AM
3/4 is numerically higher than 2/3, but it's not a fair comparison. I also think Justine would rather have 2/3 slams plus YEC plus the best record in women's tennis in 20 years rather than one more slam and a pedestrian record outside of the slams. Federer did not dominate his competition this year. Plenty of people beat him. Justine has a winning record against everyone this year except Safarova--which was in her first tournament back and whom she didn't play again the rest of the year.

Justine was more dominant this year from a numerical standard. However, there's no question in my mind or anyone else's mind that Federer's career has been a level above Justine's thusfar.

The winning percentage is only something really obsessive fans care about. Anyone remember Monica Seles's winning percentage in 92? How about Margaret Court's when she won her grand slams? Or BJK? No one cares about those things nearly as much as the number of slams won. It's nice that Justine won 25 straight matches to end the year but she only won 12 straight matches at slams. Years from now people won't remember Federer losing to Nalbandian or Canas, they'll just remember his 3 slams. Same with Justine, people might forget her winning Stuttgart or Toronto but they'll remember her only winning 2 slams this year.

Apoleb
Nov 16th, 2007, 03:06 AM
The winning percentage is only something really obsessive fans care about. Anyone remember Monica Seles's winning percentage in 92? How about Margaret Court's when she won her grand slams? Or BJK? No one cares about those things nearly as much as the number of slams won. It's nice that Justine won 25 straight matches to end the year but she only won 12 straight matches at slams. Years from now people won't remember Federer losing to Nalbandian or Canas, they'll just remember his 3 slams. Same with Justine, people might forget her winning Stuttgart or Toronto but they'll remember her only winning 2 slams this year.

I agree. Only Justine (or god) would know what would Justine prefer, but I think most people would take a win in the Australian open over wins in Toronto, Zurich and Stuttgart. :lol:

fioredeliberi
Nov 16th, 2007, 03:10 AM
Justine is different from Rog because she is good at hitting a lot of LUCKY SHOTS.

supergrunt
Nov 16th, 2007, 03:19 AM
Justine is different from Rog because she is good at hitting a lot of LUCKY SHOTS.

omfg get over it
I dont go around talking about how Justine cheated all the time now do I? :o :mad:

AcesHigh
Nov 16th, 2007, 03:52 AM
I agree. Only Justine (or god) would know what would Justine prefer, but I think most people would take a win in the Australian open over wins in Toronto, Zurich and Stuttgart. :lol:

Spot on once again. People are making too much of these smaller wins and winning %. Does anyone really think Justine or Roger cares about these numbers? I'm pretty confident Henin cares about slams, YEC, Olympics, staying #1 and creating a fear factor among her opponents.

What Federer has done..and I'm sure Justine will do this too eventually if she keeps her dominance up, is that Roger seems to conserve himself for slams these days. If you want to get to 14 slams you can't expend too much energy trying to win these smaller tournaments.

Juju4ever
Nov 16th, 2007, 05:52 AM
:lol: People are so frustrated by Justine's domination. :lol:

Tamus
Nov 16th, 2007, 05:55 AM
To the people suggesting that Justine's dominance this year is somehow devalued b/c other "top" players (Serena, Venus, Maria) have been injured or haven't performed their best, that's just :bs:. Part of being a great or dominate player is being able to win when you aren't playing your best; it's actually quite rare that a player does play her best in a match. Justine certainly hasn't put together her perfect match each time she's played a top player this year, but she's still come out on top almost every time. You can't really argue with that dominance. It's easy to say "when I play my best nobody can be me", but what matters more is what you do when you aren't playing your best, because chances are that you won't put together a perfect match.
I'm certainly not a fan of Justine, but I have come to respect her and her game. And I can certainly admit dominance when I see it, and Justine has been nothing short of dominant this year - even more dominant than Federer's year on their respective tours.

Princeza
Nov 16th, 2007, 08:23 AM
Awesome thread. A good laugh. Thanks

BuTtErFrEnA
Nov 16th, 2007, 10:34 AM
It's not Justine's fault that those players can't stay healthy and when she has played them this year, she is undefeated against Mauresmo, Sharapova, and Venus, and only 1 loss to Serena. Even if they were healthy, Justine's best is better than all four of those you mentioned.

now i know you're kidding me :spit:

BuTtErFrEnA
Nov 16th, 2007, 10:41 AM
Justine doesnt have a rival because they're all injured/inconsistent/out of shape(Sharapova, Mauresmo, Venus, Serena).

I don't see why anyone tries to compare the two. There is no comparison.

:worship: someone who shares my view on it

pka_liloo
Nov 16th, 2007, 10:46 AM
There's no ... "Justine of ATP".

now that you mentioned it, I wonder who that might be :lol:

rottweily
Nov 16th, 2007, 10:50 AM
So funny you get some people on their horse with a simple sentence including the names Henin and Federer :D
The combination Henin and Graf is also a great trigger :D

faste5683
Nov 16th, 2007, 10:53 AM
No way is Justine the Federer of the WTA - her backhand volley is way better!

:wavey:

rottweily
Nov 16th, 2007, 10:54 AM
No way is Justine the Federer of the WTA - her backhand volley is way better!

:wavey:

Indeed Federer's is no match.

chuvack
Nov 16th, 2007, 10:58 AM
finally sombody talking some sense.

Henin is the best player in the WTA at the current time, its debatable whether she is the best of the generation, and there is no serious talk of her being the best player of all time.

Federer is the best player in the ATP at the current time, he is the best player of his generation and he is very arguable the best player in all the history of tennis. Justine has a long way to go to get to such status.

goldenlox
Nov 16th, 2007, 11:20 AM
Justine is establishing herself more and more as the clear #1.
Federer is having trouble winning outside the majors.
He's lost to a lot of players this year. Canas twice, Nalbandian twice, Nadal, Gonzales, Novak.
Justine is 63-4.

evan2907
Nov 16th, 2007, 12:34 PM
Federer is the best player in the ATP at the current time, he is the best player of his generation and he is very arguable the best player in all the history of tennis. Justine has a long way to go to get to such status.
The best player in all the history of tennis is ESTHER VERGEER.:worship: :worship:
Federer can't hold a candle to her.:devil:

Furthermore Graf, Navratilova, Evert are greater than Federer.

AnnaK_4ever
Nov 16th, 2007, 12:41 PM
Indeed. She's not nearly as boring, and she doesn't own a cow.

Neither does Roger :p
The cow is dead :sad:

P.S.
Or maybe you were talking about Mirka? :devil:

thrust
Nov 16th, 2007, 12:59 PM
Neither does Roger :p
The cow is dead :sad:

P.S.
Or maybe you were talking about Mirka? :devil:

Leave Mirka alone, she is a pretty lady who happens to be pleasingly plumb. Not everyone is into skinny hard bodied women.

chuvack
Nov 16th, 2007, 01:05 PM
Neither does Roger :p
The cow is dead :sad:

P.S.
Or maybe you were talking about Mirka? :devil:


shut up you fool, Mirka is beautifull, just because your probably gay and and are jealous of attractive curvy women, don't take it out on her.

harloo
Nov 16th, 2007, 01:07 PM
So funny you get some people on their horse with a simple sentence including the names Henin and Federer :D
The combination Henin and Graf is also a great trigger :D



1). Henin shouldn't be mentioned in the same breathe as Graf or Federer.
2). Graf shouldn't be mentioned in the same breathe as Federer.

Federer is the greatest player to ever pick up a racquet, it's an insult to even compare him to any player on the WTA.

cecilija
Nov 16th, 2007, 01:13 PM
Federer is the greatest player to ever pick up a racquet, it's an insult to even compare him to any player on the WTA.

Federer is far from a great on clay.

sportywoman
Nov 16th, 2007, 01:14 PM
Federer is Roger. Henin is Justine.

One is a male. The other a female.

One plays in ATP. The other plays in WTA.

One is a Swiss. The other a Belgian.

One has won Slams except FO. The other won Slams but not Wimby.

So, there's no point comparing them. No matter how you do it, they are unique in their own way. There's no "Federer in WTA" or even "Justine of ATP". It's just... humble Roger or workmanlike Henin. That's all.


And they are both frenchspeaking people from two little trilingual european countries. Culturally wise and personality wise they are very close.

I also think the comparison is sometimes based on their physique which is not extremely muscular and athletical and yet they made the best of it and have a more versatile game than their respective peers.

Matt01
Nov 16th, 2007, 01:14 PM
1)Federer is the greatest player to ever pick up a racquet, it's an insult to even compare him to any player on the WTA.


Exaggerating much, eh?

evan2907
Nov 16th, 2007, 01:23 PM
Federer is the greatest player to ever pick up a racquet, it's an insult to even compare him to any player on the WTA.
As long as he didn't win RG more than once, he will never be the greatest player.

saniapower
Nov 16th, 2007, 04:33 PM
Justine could not beat Serena in Miami final this year after winning the 1st set 6-0. Serena just raised her level after the dismal 1st set and Justine’s game started to crumble under pressure. She failed to enter the Wimbledon final to face Venus where she was on a roll. She lost to Sharapova in 2006 USO final in straight sets where Sharapova was in supreme form. How many times she was tested by Jelena Jankovic and those went to the wire. One this yr Jelena was leading 5-0 in the 3rd set but could not finish it. Whenever Venus,Serena, Sharapova, Mauresmo they were in great shape n played great tennis Justine struggled against them. But the same is not true for Federer. He can just demolish anybody who is in whatever great form. He is an artiste. He is the name of perfection. He can play game after game without a single unforced error. It is impossible to be better than Federer. He is like the God of tennis. Pete Sampras quickly understood that after losing to Federer that it was not possible to win one more Wimbledon title in Federer era n so he retired. Still Sampras is the 2nd best to Federer for all time(not on clay).

It is not a big deal to win titles after titles beating players like Tatiana Golovin or Svetlana Kuznetsova n retain world no 1 spot. Either Venus, Serena, Sharapova who can really challenge her they are absent due to injury or some other reason or they are totally out of shape. Of course it is not Justine’s fault but i’ll not count those as big achievements. See Henin’s H-H against Serena n Venus. It’s 50-50 or slightly in Justin’s favor but it’s just lately that it has started to swing in Justine’s favor. It was not the case 3-4 yrs ago. But Federer’s domination on ATP circuit started almost from the beginning of his career. u can mention Federer h-h with Nalbandian, Canas n Nadal but I am sure those ratio is bound to improve in near future. u see how he demolished Roddick in AO- big server losing sets 6-2,6-0. Ace king Ivo Karlovic cant find his service secure against Federer. It is amazing how Federer can break the big servers so easily and so often and his own service is so precise and so effective. Someone can give example of Borg, Rod Laver but I doubt how long those records will remain intact!

Rosslyn
Nov 16th, 2007, 04:38 PM
Justine could not beat Serena in Miami final this year after winning the 1st set 6-0. Serena just raised her level after the dismal 1st set and Justine’s game started to crumble under pressure. She failed to enter the Wimbledon final to face Venus where she was on a roll. She lost to Sharapova in 2006 USO final in straight sets where Sharapova was in supreme form. How many times she was tested by Jelena Jankovic n those went to the wire. One this yr Jelena was leading 5-0 in the 3rd set but could not finish it. Whenever Venus,Serena, Sharapova, Mauresmo they were in great shape n played great tennis Justine struggled against them. But the same is not true for Federer. He can just demolish anybody who is in great touch. He is an artiste. He is the name of perfection. He can play game after game without a single unforced error. It is impossible to be better than Federer. He is like the God of tennis. Pete Sampras quickly understood that after losing to Federer that it is not possible to win one more Wimbledon title in Federer era n so he retired. Still Sampras is the 2nd best to Federer for all time(not on clay).

It is not a big deal to win titles after titles beating players like Tatiana Golovin or Svetlana Kuznetsova n retain world no 1 spot. Either Venus, Serena, Sharapova who can really challenge her they are absent due to injury or some other reason or they are totally out of shape. Of course it is not Justine’s fault but i’ll not count those as big achievement. See Henin’s H-H against Serena n Venus. It’s 50-50 or slightly in Justin’s favor but it’s just lately that it has started to swing in Justine’s favor. It was not the case 2-3 yrs ago. But Federer’s domination on ATP circuit started almost from the beginning of his career. U can say Federer h-h with Nalbandian, Canas n Nadal but I am sure those ratio is bound to improve in near future. u see how he demolished Roddick in AO- big server losing sets 6-2,6-0. Ace king Ivo Karlovic cant find his service game secure against Federer. It is amazing how Federer can break the big servers so easily and so often and his won service is so precise and so effective. Someone can give example of Borg, Rod Lever but I doubt how long those records will remain intact!

awesome post !

you rock :yeah:

Lunaris
Nov 16th, 2007, 05:45 PM
Justine could not beat Serena in Miami final this year after winning the 1st set 6-0. Serena just raised her level after the dismal 1st set and Justine’s game started to crumble under pressure. She failed to enter the Wimbledon final to face Venus where she was on a roll. She lost to Sharapova in 2006 USO final in straight sets where Sharapova was in supreme form.
Was Justine in supreme form? Besides I don't get why so many people still try to compare player A in her best vs. player B in her best. How often do you think you will see both of them in their best simultaneously? This comparison is absolutely useless.
How many times she was tested by Jelena Jankovic n those went to the wire. One this yr Jelena was leading 5-0 in the 3rd set but could not finish it. Whenever Venus,Serena, Sharapova, Mauresmo they were in great shape n played great tennis Justine struggled against them. But the same is not true for Federer. He can just demolish anybody who is in great touch. He is an artiste. He is the name of perfection. He can play game after game without a single unforced error. It is impossible to be better than Federer. He is like the God of tennis. Pete Sampras quickly understood that after losing to Federer that it is not possible to win one more Wimbledon title in Federer era n so he retired. Still Sampras is the 2nd best to Federer for all time(not on clay).
Ehm, Nalbandian was in great form in Madrid and Paris and Federer was far from demolishing him (just like Henin wasn't demolishing Sharapova at US Open 06). True that he can play without unforced errors as he showed against Isner at the US Open (was it against Isner?), but how often do you think he can do it? More often it's an errorfest from him rather than perfection, especially in this season.
It is not a big deal to win titles after titles beating players like Tatiana Golovin or Svetlana Kuznetsova n retain world no 1 spot. Either Venus, Serena, Sharapova who can really challenge her they are absent due to injury or some other reason or they are totally out of shape. Of course it is not Justine’s fault but i’ll not count those as big achievement. See Henin’s H-H against Serena n Venus. It’s 50-50 or slightly in Justin’s favor but it’s just lately that it has started to swing in Justine’s favor. It was not the case 2-3 yrs ago.
It was not the case about 4-5 years ago if we intend to be correct. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the WS had their peak years between 2000-2003 and Justine from 2003 till now. Henin wasn't as good as she is now at the time when the WS were dominating her. She was "a good claycourter with a nice backhand" if I recall it correctly. Henin didn't play Venus from 2003 Melbourne till 2007 US Open, since 2003 Henin leads Serena 5-2. Henin leads Sharapova 6-2, 4 of these wins in 2 sets. Anyway regardless of what you think, history won't ask whom Justine played and what shape her opponents were in. It's their business to stay fit.
But Federer’s domination on ATP circuit started almost from the beginning of his career. U can say Federer h-h with Nalbandian, Canas n Nadal but I am sure those ratio is bound to improve in near future. u see how he demolished Roddick in AO- big server losing sets 6-2,6-0. Ace king Ivo Karlovic cant find his service game secure against Federer. It is amazing how Federer can break the big servers so easily and so often and his won service is so precise and so effective. Someone can give example of Borg, Rod Lever but I doubt how long those records will remain intact!
Well, he won his first Wimbledon in 2003, but his first really dominant season was 2004 when he was 23. Do you think he started his ATP career in 23 years of age? Also how you come to claim Karlovic can't find his serve against Fed?
Here are their H2H results which speak in another language: 6-3 7-6(3) 7-6(5), 6-7(5) 6-3 7-6(4), 7-6(2) 7-6(3), 7-6(6) 7-6(5), 6-3 4-6 6-3
Roddick besides his serve has no really big weapons, his forehand was a threat once in 2003-04 but has declined since then, backhand never was great, he's a mediocre mover and most importantly does he believe he has any chances against Federer? Again not the best example.
Don't get me wrong, Federer is a fantastic player but you're overreacting quite a bit. Imo you should spread your wisdom in Menstennisforum. I am sure it would be greatly appreciated.
edit: I also don't want to say Henin is anywhere near Federer, but at least make your arguments correct (unbiased). ;)

sharapovarulz1
Nov 16th, 2007, 06:00 PM
She is not Federer at the end of the day, but give it a few years and as much as it kills me to say this she may be the female version of Federer in the WTA!

sharapovarulz1
Nov 16th, 2007, 06:05 PM
Justine could not beat Serena in Miami final this year after winning the 1st set 6-0. Serena just raised her level after the dismal 1st set and Justine’s game started to crumble under pressure. She failed to enter the Wimbledon final to face Venus where she was on a roll. She lost to Sharapova in 2006 USO final in straight sets where Sharapova was in supreme form. How many times she was tested by Jelena Jankovic n those went to the wire. One this yr Jelena was leading 5-0 in the 3rd set but could not finish it. Whenever Venus,Serena, Sharapova, Mauresmo they were in great shape n played great tennis Justine struggled against them. But the same is not true for Federer. He can just demolish anybody who is in great touch. He is an artiste. He is the name of perfection. He can play game after game without a single unforced error. It is impossible to be better than Federer. He is like the God of tennis. Pete Sampras quickly understood that after losing to Federer that it is not possible to win one more Wimbledon title in Federer era n so he retired. Still Sampras is the 2nd best to Federer for all time(not on clay).

It is not a big deal to win titles after titles beating players like Tatiana Golovin or Svetlana Kuznetsova n retain world no 1 spot. Either Venus, Serena, Sharapova who can really challenge her they are absent due to injury or some other reason or they are totally out of shape. Of course it is not Justine’s fault but i’ll not count those as big achievement. See Henin’s H-H against Serena n Venus. It’s 50-50 or slightly in Justin’s favor but it’s just lately that it has started to swing in Justine’s favor. It was not the case 2-3 yrs ago. But Federer’s domination on ATP circuit started almost from the beginning of his career. U can say Federer h-h with Nalbandian, Canas n Nadal but I am sure those ratio is bound to improve in near future. u see how he demolished Roddick in AO- big server losing sets 6-2,6-0. Ace king Ivo Karlovic cant find his service game secure against Federer. It is amazing how Federer can break the big servers so easily and so often and his won service is so precise and so effective. Someone can give example of Borg, Rod Lever but I doubt how long those records will remain intact!

Well said mate :worship:

At the end of the day can Henin really win an in form Sharapova or Williams sister when she has total domination over them 3 then I will say yes she is the Federer of the WTA but I really don't believe she can and I know the Venus and Serena fans will back me up here!

littlebin
Nov 16th, 2007, 07:30 PM
She already won an in form Sharapova in AO 2006, Bubai 2006, YEC 2006, YEC 2007.
She won an in form Venus in USO 2007. Even though Venus claimed she has some illness, Venus still played almost at her best.

Well said mate :worship:

At the end of the day can Henin really win an in form Sharapova or Williams sister when she has total domination over them 3 then I will say yes she is the Federer of the WTA but I really don't believe she can and I know the Venus and Serena fans will back me up here!

shibster
Nov 16th, 2007, 07:40 PM
Well said mate :worship:

At the end of the day can Henin really win an in form Sharapova or Williams sister when she has total domination over them 3 then I will say yes she is the Federer of the WTA but I really don't believe she can and I know the Venus and Serena fans will back me up here!

let's examine the logic.

justine can never win an in-form sharapova/WS (since every win she has over them, they are not in-form, whereas every win they have over justine is legit)

so yeah, justine has never won when she lost :rolleyes:

yup, perfect logic.

Ninny
Nov 16th, 2007, 08:11 PM
Well said mate :worship:

At the end of the day can Henin really win an in form Sharapova or Williams sister when she has total domination over them 3 then I will say yes she is the Federer of the WTA but I really don't believe she can and I know the Venus and Serena fans will back me up here!

Out of the 8 matches they have played (I think it's 8), which of those was Maria not in form? Surely she had to be in form for some of them because some of them were either a Semi-final or final!

So would you mind telling me which one. Thanks

j-fan
Nov 16th, 2007, 08:35 PM
An in-form or at-her-best-Serena is a mythical player who by definition cannot be beaten. The problem is it is a figment of some people's imagination. I bet even Serena cannot beat Serena-at-her best.

The problem is neither can anyone beat Justine-at-her-best or Maria-at-her-best. They just never ever appear at the same time and at the same place.

:haha: :haha: :haha:

shap_half
Nov 16th, 2007, 08:39 PM
I don't care if Justine is the Federer of the WTA. I've argued in this conversation before, and I realize at the end of the day, I just want Justine to kick everyone's ass. And y'all can deduce whatever conclusion you want from the ass kicking she's doling out.

Carsten
Nov 16th, 2007, 08:48 PM
Henins Results this year are much more impressive than Federer's :)

imo Justine's better :p ;)

AcesHigh
Nov 16th, 2007, 09:04 PM
Henins Results this year are much more impressive than Federer's :)

imo Justine's better :p ;)

Yes, in delusional Justard world.

Everywhere else, 3/4 slams, 4/4 finals>> 2/3 slams, 2/3 finals.

AcesHigh
Nov 16th, 2007, 09:05 PM
Anyway, this is not about Justine being less than stellar. This is about no one on the WTA being able to be compared to Federer since Graf/Seles...maybe Serena comes close in 2002-2003 form, but that's it.

Ninny
Nov 16th, 2007, 09:56 PM
Anyway, this is not about Justine being less than stellar. This is about no one on the WTA being able to be compared to Federer since Graf/Seles...maybe Serena comes close in 2002-2003 form, but that's it.

:rolleyes: Below is a post someone made in another thread regarding Justine's 07 year and Serena's 02 year. Enjoy :)

I thought your post was interesting. The definition of domination can be very subjective. Your post made me think about how it could be defined. Rather than define it, however, I thought it may be better to compare Justines 2007 to another year which, by common consent, people believe the player dominated the field. I think Serenas 2002 fits that particular criteria as few people would argue that she didn't dominate that year.

So I did a little digging (thank you WTATOUR.COM) and here are my findings:

Overall Winning %
Serena 2002 = 56/5 = 91.8
Justine 2007 = 63/4 = 94

Vs Top 10
Serena 2002 = 17/2 = 89.5%
Justine 2007 = 22/1 = 95.7

Both Serena and Justine beat 4 different players who had already won a slam.

Vs Top 10 in slams
Serena 2002 = 5/0 = 100%
Justine 2007 = 6/0 = 100%

Serena beat 3 different players who had already won a slam. Justine beat 2.

Worst Loss
Serena 2002 - Charleston Q - l. to Schnyder Rank 30
Justine 2007 - Paris S - l. to Safarova Rank 32

Tournaments Won
Serena 2002 - 8/13 - 61.5%
Justine 2007 - 10/14 - 71.4%

Slams Won
Serena 2002 - 3/3 - 100%
Justine 2007 - 2/3 - 66.6%

So what conclusion did I reach from this?

If you believe that Serena dominated 2002, it is very difficult to argue against Justine having dominated the field this year. The only valid argument is to talk about that loss at Wimbledon. But should one match really be used to judge an entire year?

Of course this is all still just semantics and I'm sure some people will be able to argue against my conclusions. And if we were to talk about whether she dominated the slams (and the slams alone) then my conclusion may also be different.

Now I need to stop as I've got a headache from working out all of these stupid percentages!

Forehand_Volley
Nov 16th, 2007, 09:59 PM
:rolleyes: Below is a post someone made in another thread regarding Justine's 07 year and Serena's 02 year. Enjoy :)
As with most things, you have to hit AcesHigh over the head with it.

AcesHigh
Nov 17th, 2007, 01:03 AM
If you think Justine's 2007>Serena's 2002, IMO, you don't know much about tennis. You can bring up all the stats you want.. Serena had a perfect year in slams, defeated the hottest player on tour 3 slams in a row and didn't have the comfort of playing the likes of Ivanovic and Kuznetsova in finals or the Chakvetadze's or Jankovic's of today.

I really don't understand the logic of some Justine fans here... the lack of obvious tennis knowledge is shocking to me, although I know it's just a few. For anyone to say Justine's 2007>Federer's 2007 is ridiculous and you have to know little about tennis to say that or you have to be completely deluded.

littlebin
Nov 17th, 2007, 07:00 AM
Serena had the comfort of playing her older Sister in all her 2002 Slam finals. Venus didn't put much resistance again her little sister. At least, Ivanovic & Kuznetsova tried their best, while Venus simply tanked the much away to Serena.

Serena's perfect slam record in 2002 in some part was due to Venus. Their finals were more of exhibition match than competitive match.

If you think Justine's 2007>Serena's 2002, IMO, you don't know much about tennis. You can bring up all the stats you want.. Serena had a perfect year in slams, defeated the hottest player on tour 3 slams in a row and didn't have the comfort of playing the likes of Ivanovic and Kuznetsova in finals or the Chakvetadze's or Jankovic's of today.

I really don't understand the logic of some Justine fans here... the lack of obvious tennis knowledge is shocking to me, although I know it's just a few. For anyone to say Justine's 2007>Federer's 2007 is ridiculous and you have to know little about tennis to say that or you have to be completely deluded.

Lunaris
Nov 17th, 2007, 08:06 AM
The problem with Aces High is that he does see GS results as a merit of everything in tennis. Yea, GS are the most prestigious tournaments and mean a lot in tennis world but the game is still the same even there and it's impossible to base the whole season on results at 4 tournaments. I can see him saying that if a player wins 3/4 GS and loses in 1st/2nd round everywhere else he/she still does have a more dominant season than a player who won 2 Slams and lost only 4 times in the whole season (of course I am exaggerating, but not too much I believe). He then has the audacity to say a person he is arguing with doesn't possess any tennis knowledge or similar crap.
Based purely on all results Justine has had a better (more dominant) season than Federer, winning almost every tournament she played and not losing before semifinals. Whether the competition on WTA circuit is of the same quality as on ATP is of course a different topic.
That said Justine still has many miles ahead of her if she wants to be spoken in one sentence with Federer and with all respect to her abilities I don't see her making it.

Ninny
Nov 17th, 2007, 08:09 AM
Why worry what AssesHigh says and thinks, when it's the professionals who are saying the positive and they know more about tennis than AssesHigh does :)

Petersmiler
Nov 17th, 2007, 08:11 AM
If you think Justine's 2007>Serena's 2002, IMO, you don't know much about tennis. You can bring up all the stats you want.. Serena had a perfect year in slams, defeated the hottest player on tour 3 slams in a row and didn't have the comfort of playing the likes of Ivanovic and Kuznetsova in finals or the Chakvetadze's or Jankovic's of today.

I really don't understand the logic of some Justine fans here... the lack of obvious tennis knowledge is shocking to me, although I know it's just a few. For anyone to say Justine's 2007>Federer's 2007 is ridiculous and you have to know little about tennis to say that or you have to be completely deluded.

I feel I must come in here as I've been quoted! My initial post was not trying to say that Justine can be compared to Federer. It was simply to show that she has been as dominant as Serena was in 2002, bar one match in July.

It could even be argued that beating your sister in a slam final is not as impressive as beating a rival, but that is subjective and I refuse to fall into the same trap as you have.

Ah, those halcyon days of 2001-2003 where only the cream of the crop were playing and you really did have to play the best tennis ever in order to win. Memories.......

sportywoman
Nov 17th, 2007, 08:32 AM
The problem with Aces High is that he does see GS results as a merit of everything in tennis. Yea, GS are the most prestigious tournaments and mean a lot in tennis world but the game is still the same even there and it's impossible to base the whole season on results at 4 tournaments. I can see him saying that if a player wins 3/4 GS and loses in 1st/2nd round everywhere else he/she still does have a more dominant season than a player who won 2 Slams and lost only 4 times in the whole season (of course I am exaggerating, but not too much I believe). He then has the audacity to say a person he is arguing with doesn't possess any tennis knowledge or similar crap.
Based purely on all results Justine has had a better (more dominant) season than Federer, winning almost every tournament she played and not losing before semifinals. Whether the competition on WTA circuit is of the same quality as on ATP is of course a different topic.
That said Justine still has many miles ahead of her if she wants to be spoken in one sentence with Federer and with all respect to her abilities I don't see her making it.


Agree with you for the most part but what i have personally read about the comparison between the two is not that Justine is like Federer but mostly that Justine had a federer-like YEAR which is absolutly true !

For the most part, she went very deep in EVERY tournement she entered ..just like Roger who's domination is evenly consistent, even when he failed in the later stages of the tournement.

Loosing at early stages and loosing consistently at later stages is ABSOLUTELY two different things and the FEDERER-like domination when they don't win it's usally that they failed at later stages of a tournement, hence when meeting consistently their respective best challengers which is a criterion they shared. It's not the same and to me it is more of a domination than when you are punctually very strong at some big tournements but then loose big times everywhere else in early stages to semi known young guns.

INCONSITENCY isn't domination to me. It's just being strong punctually and a clear part time favorite. A dominant is EVERY time perceived as a potential winner, there is no if (she's healthy, she had a good night, ect...), no question mark. You just know that she is the person to beat EVERYTIME she/he enters the field !

People argue that she had 2 slams while he had 3 but since she missed one slam, it is also legitimate to read it the other way around and saying that she didn't win one just like Roger ...for both of them their respective missing one.

As for the future, nobody holds the true and has a chrystal ball. You have to start somewhere. Justine has had a domination year maybe she will keep on doing it for next year, maybe not but the fact is she had a federer like domination year even more that the master himself who went from 12 tournements won in 2006 down to 7 won (so far) when Justine did the other way around going from a 6 won last year to a 10 won this year with 4 losses, one at a final and 3 other at semi final.

Pretty constistently dominant if you asked me...and to have reached the semi final of each tournement she entered for the last 21 months, incuding 6 slams finals out of 7 is also a FEDERER like criterion of domination.

Lunaris
Nov 17th, 2007, 10:13 AM
Agree with you for the most part but what i have personally read about the comparison between the two is not that Justine is like Federer but mostly that Justine had a federer-like YEAR which is absolutly true !
I am not sure if there is any argument between us, so let me just say that I believe the threadstarter was comparing Henin and Federer career wise saying "Justine is not the Federer of WTA", which I agree with (as I wrote she still has a long way to go), though the arguments the threadstarter used to prove his/her opinion were at the very least "flawed" in my opinion. On the other hand I also agree with what you wrote, Justine indeed had a Federer-esque season this year. 63 wins and only 4 losses playing only Tier II's and bigger tournaments speaks for itself.

spencercarlos
Nov 17th, 2007, 10:39 AM
Serena had the comfort of playing her older Sister in all her 2002 Slam finals. Venus didn't put much resistance again her little sister. At least, Ivanovic & Kuznetsova tried their best, while Venus simply tanked the much away to Serena.

Serena's perfect slam record in 2002 in some part was due to Venus. Their finals were more of exhibition match than competitive match.
Wow this another posts spot on, delusion at its best.

First Serena beat the player who was winning grand slams at the time or recently, which was Venus who had won 4 out of 7 grand slams played before the 2002 french open.

And second Ivanovic and Kuznetsova played (tried) their best? :lol: sure Henin beat them deserving those titles, but those two played crap in those finals.
At least the Wimbledon 2002 final was a great match, yes the 7-6 6-3 match, a very high quality hard hitting match, one of the best these two have played against one another, and Usopen 2002 final which Serena spanked Venus, played the best tennis i have seen from any woman, and still she won 6-4 6-3. Had there been an Ivanovic and Kuznetsova and im sure they would have been bageled at least in one of the sets.

tennisbear7
Nov 17th, 2007, 10:49 AM
The quality of the ATP is very different to WTA.

It's so much harder on the ATP. There is no comparison.

Roger is on track to becoming the best tennis player ever. Justine needs to win around fourteen more slams to be even mentioned in the same breath. It's not sexism, it's reality. If you want to be regarded as among the very top players in the world, then you have to have established a comparison with the champions of the past. Justine is never going to rival Graf.

That said, Justine has put on some phenomenal numbers this year, and she's well on her way to around ten, even more slams.

Matt01
Nov 17th, 2007, 10:51 AM
The problem with Aces High is that he does see GS results as a merit of everything in tennis.


Yep. Someone should tell him that the WTA tour exists of more than only 4 tournaments :lol:

spencercarlos
Nov 17th, 2007, 10:53 AM
Agree with you for the most part but what i have personally read about the comparison between the two is not that Justine is like Federer but mostly that Justine had a federer-like YEAR which is absolutly true !

For the most part, she went very deep in EVERY tournement she entered ..just like Roger who's domination is evenly consistent, even when he failed in the later stages of the tournement.

Loosing at early stages and loosing consistently at later stages is ABSOLUTELY two different things and the FEDERER-like domination when they don't win it's usally that they failed at later stages of a tournement, hence when meeting consistently their respective best challengers which is a criterion they shared. It's not the same and to me it is more of a domination than when you are punctually very strong at some big tournements but then loose big times everywhere else in early stages to semi known young guns.

INCONSITENCY isn't domination to me. It's just being strong punctually and a clear part time favorite. A dominant is EVERY time perceived as a potential winner, there is no if (she's healthy, she had a good night, ect...), no question mark. You just know that she is the person to beat EVERYTIME she/he enters the field !

People argue that she had 2 slams while he had 3 but since she missed one slam, it is also legitimate to read it the other way around and saying that she didn't win one just like Roger ...for both of them their respective missing one.

As for the future, nobody holds the true and has a chrystal ball. You have to start somewhere. Justine has had a domination year maybe she will keep on doing it for next year, maybe not but the fact is she had a federer like domination year even more that the master himself who went from 12 tournements won in 2006 down to 7 won (so far) when Justine did the other way around going from a 6 won last year to a 10 won this year with 4 losses, one at a final and 3 other at semi final.

Pretty constistently dominant if you asked me...and to have reached the semi final of each tournement she entered for the last 21 months, incuding 6 slams finals out of 7 is also a FEDERER like criterion of domination.
Justine´s 2007, pretty similar to Federer´s 2005, which is his 4th best year ( after 2006, 2004 and 2007).

But to say Justine´s 2007 is better than Roger´s is just plain ridiculous.
Justine is on her way though into dominating, lets not forget she reached all 4 grand slam finals last year too, but still she has won 3 out of 6 played, while Roger has won 6 out of 8 in the past two years. Sorry no contest, just delusion.

Matt01
Nov 17th, 2007, 10:56 AM
First Serena beat the player who was winning grand slams at the time or recently, which was Venus who had won 4 out of 7 grand slams played before the 2002 french open.

And second Ivanovic and Kuznetsova played (tried) their best? :lol: sure Henin beat them deserving those titles, but those two played crap in those finals.
At least the Wimbledon 2002 final was a great match


As far as I remember, that was the only all Williams Slam final that was of really good quality. And it was still far from being a classic.
The French Open final before in 2002 was an ugly, error-prone ball-bashing match at its best, though :p

Henpova
Nov 17th, 2007, 11:07 AM
Wow this thread has gotten out of control. How about the Williams fans and every one else just agree to disagree. Ok:yeah:

PaulHopkins
Nov 17th, 2007, 11:23 AM
The difference between Henin and Kuznetsova is far greater than the difference between Federer and Nadal...

treufreund
Nov 17th, 2007, 11:44 AM
And they are both frenchspeaking people from two little trilingual european countries. Culturally wise and personality wise they are very close.

I also think the comparison is sometimes based on their physique which is not extremely muscular and athletical and yet they made the best of it and have a more versatile game than their respective peers.

Uhhh, well, nope. Fed's mother tongue is German (swiss German). :) He learned French in his teenage years. Otherwise your post is IMPECCABLE and SPOT ON!!! :wavey::worship:

serenus_2k8
Nov 17th, 2007, 11:58 AM
Lol... even a thread that stars comparing Justine to Fed ends up comparing her to Serena. Lets just look at 2008 when Justines 3 threats have a chance to reach top form.

Whatever you say Federer is miles above Henin in terms of domination as no1 can argue that anyone on the ATP tour at their best will beat Fed, but that argument always exists with Henin!

saniapower
Nov 17th, 2007, 03:00 PM
Some people are forgetting that Henin is dominating a very weak field. If we take William sisters & Sharapova out of her way then there is no more competition left, there is no one to put up a real challenge to Justine. Srarapova hardly played after the USO and still in the YEC she just thrashed her opponents to reach the final. Williams sisters also didn't play for most part of year but still both won slams. It just shows the difference of level between them(justine,Sharapova,williams) and others. On the contrary Federer is facing much more tough challenges. Competition on ATP circuit is much tough. Even no 25 Karlovic can take him to successive tie breaks. U see how he dominated Nadal today. At the end of the day u see Nadal won 33 pts & Federer 53 pts. That's the domination i'm talking about. Number sometime doesn't reveal everything. Federer is a magician.

Matt01
Nov 17th, 2007, 03:09 PM
Some people are forgetting that Henin is dominating a very weak field.


:zzz:

littlebin
Nov 17th, 2007, 03:18 PM
Some people just forget that Serena only need to beat the her Sister in the final. Venus simply tanked the much without much resistance. Their finals are more of an exhibition match instead of competitive match. How can it be "high quality" or "best tennis"?

Before Justine met Ivanovic and Kuznetsova, she also beat the player who won slams recently, she beat Serena and Venus before the finals.


Wow this another posts spot on, delusion at its best.

First Serena beat the player who was winning grand slams at the time or recently, which was Venus who had won 4 out of 7 grand slams played before the 2002 french open.

And second Ivanovic and Kuznetsova played (tried) their best? :lol: sure Henin beat them deserving those titles, but those two played crap in those finals.
At least the Wimbledon 2002 final was a great match, yes the 7-6 6-3 match, a very high quality hard hitting match, one of the best these two have played against one another, and Usopen 2002 final which Serena spanked Venus, played the best tennis i have seen from any woman, and still she won 6-4 6-3. Had there been an Ivanovic and Kuznetsova and im sure they would have been bageled at least in one of the sets.

moon
Nov 17th, 2007, 03:21 PM
2007--The year of the Williams:haha:

'She is the best this year".....07, 06, 05 :lol: :lol:

2006 Justine did not win 2 slams.
2005 she didn't either. So 2007 is really the only year she is undisputably the best. Just because you end the year at number 1, does not mean you are the best player. Just ask Lindsay Davenport. :p

And as for you laughing at my sig--I can only imagine that you are so infantile that you cannot possibly imagine the context.

Watching
Nov 17th, 2007, 03:48 PM
There is no comparison. They play nothing alike and are nothing alike.

sportywoman
Nov 17th, 2007, 04:04 PM
Justine´s 2007, pretty similar to Federer´s 2005, which is his 4th best year ( after 2006, 2004 and 2007).

But to say Justine´s 2007 is better than Roger´s is just plain ridiculous.
Justine is on her way though into dominating, lets not forget she reached all 4 grand slam finals last year too, but still she has won 3 out of 6 played, while Roger has won 6 out of 8 in the past two years. Sorry no contest, just delusion.


Absolutely true.

But we can also assume from those fails in 2006 (25% win/loss in slams) and the fact that she was already consistently very productive through each tournement that from 2006 till today, two years in a row, she was/is CONSISTENTLY on the rise in EVERY TOURNEMENT, including the slam.

So based on that it is an objective possibility that she will at least keep that level or still upgrade her technics like she said she will be focused to do as she didn't reached her peak yet (so says Carlos and her) and is determined to work her service for example.

Nothing says that she won't keep on rising and nothing say that she won't be able and will decline in 2008. Federer wasn't dominant from the start, he had to begin somewhere too and noone could have thought that he would be so dominant at this stage after years of being a good tennisman not the great he become at 23 !

chuvack
Nov 17th, 2007, 05:03 PM
Federer is far from a great on clay.


good lord where do these idiots come from?

Roger is phenomenal on clay, 2 French finals, 5 Masters Series titles and another 5 finals. If no Nadal, Roger would have won the last 3 French Opens, he dominates the entire ATP on clay except Nadal, how can somebody not give him credit for that. Face it Roger dominates on every surface.

cecilija
Nov 17th, 2007, 05:27 PM
good lord where do these idiots come from?

Roger is phenomenal on clay, 2 French finals, 5 Masters Series titles and another 5 finals. If no Nadal, Roger would have won the last 3 French Opens, he dominates the entire ATP on clay except Nadal, how can somebody not give him credit for that. Face it Roger dominates on every surface.

He does not dominate on clay and never has dominated. The only meaningful title on clay that he has is Hamburg which has a low bounce. I believe he won it 4 times, not 5 as you said.

Calypso
Nov 17th, 2007, 06:09 PM
A 'female Federer' must not only dominate the WTA but must also play with style and elegance ;) . It's tough being Federova:D !

Justine probably is one of few players on the WTA who can play with Federer's variety and flourish: mix power with great touch, topspin and slice and has a wonderful net game. She has worked so hard to get physically stronger too. Justine's also mentally tough.

Sure, she has never dominated a single season like Roger has, but I'll always have so much respect for what she's doing on the WTA for someone so physically small. I also think in the long run, both Justine and Roger will complete their career slams at Wimbledon and Roland Garros respectively.

I wonder who in the history of the WTA could be called the 'female Federer', i.e. able to totally dominate the tour while playing effortless, beautiful tennis? Graf? She could play more or less every shot in the book but relied heavily on her Forehand and couldn't consistently hit aggressive BH topspin (maybe she didn't have to? Her FH was so good and she had a dependable and vicious BH slice). Sabatini? She was stylish. Navratilova? Another player with all the shots and touch, but may be not as devastating from the baseline as Roger can be? Martina Hingis in 1997 was probably the last 'female Federer'. She could pull off any shot on court!

Tamus
Nov 17th, 2007, 07:43 PM
I don't know why it's so crazy (as some suggest) to say that Justine's 2007 is more dominant than Federer's 2007. Sure Federer has clearly had the more dominant career, but if you look at this year alone, an arguement can definately be made for Justine. Yes, 3 slams is better than 2, but it's not ALL about the slams. Look at the Masters Series champions:


Indian Wells: Rafael Nadal
Miami: Novak Đoković
Monte Carlo: Rafael Nadal
Rome: Rafael Nadal
Hamburg: Roger Federer
Montreal: Novak Đoković
Cincinnati: Roger Federer
Madrid: David Nalbandian
Paris: David Nalbandian

This surely doesn't show dominance from Federer.
Federer has won less than half of the tournaments he entered, while Henin won over 70%. Federer has lost over twice as many matches as Henin lost this year. Furthermore, look at the rankings:

WTA
HENIN, JUSTINE BEL 6155
KUZNETSOVA, SVETLANA RUS 3725
JANKOVIC, JELENA SRB 3475
IVANOVIC, ANA SRB 3461
SHARAPOVA, MARIA RUS 2956

ATP
FEDERER, ROGER SUI 6530
NADAL, RAFAEL ESP 5535
DJOKOVIC, NOVAK SRB 4470
DAVYDENKO, NIKOLAY RUS 2725
RODDICK, ANDY USA 2330

The difference between Henin and 2nd place is greater than the difference between Federer and 3rd place.
I'd say Henin had the more dominant year.

saniapower
Nov 17th, 2007, 07:50 PM
The difference between Henin and Kuznetsova is far greater than the difference between Federer and Nadal...

Absolutely true. :shrug:

supergrunt
Nov 17th, 2007, 07:53 PM
They games are different...

chuvack
Nov 17th, 2007, 08:27 PM
He does not dominate on clay and never has dominated. The only meaningful title on clay that he has is Hamburg which has a low bounce. I believe he won it 4 times, not 5 as you said.


ummm HELLO!! Rome (beating Nadal) also twice Monte Carlo final (loss both to Nadal) also last year Rome final?

Roger's record on clay the last 3 seasons (non-Nadal matches) is something like 50-1 against the rest of the ATP. That is DOMINATION, pure and simple. It doesn't matter what is the bounce, Roger dominated the rest of the tour in 2005-2007 on clay.

cecilija
Nov 17th, 2007, 08:33 PM
ummm HELLO!! Rome (beating Nadal) also twice Monte Carlo final (loss both to Nadal) also last year Rome final?

Roger's record on clay the last 3 seasons (non-Nadal matches) is something like 50-1 against the rest of the ATP. That is DOMINATION, pure and simple. It doesn't matter what is the bounce, Roger dominated the rest of the tour in 2005-2007 on clay.

Federer never won Rome. It doesn't really matter who he is losing to, he is not dominating the tour on clay. What does the rest of the tour mean? :lol:

And Nadal has been around for three years, why didn't he win big titles on clay before then?

lightningquick
Nov 17th, 2007, 08:56 PM
Federer never won Rome. It doesn't really matter who he is losing to, he is not dominating the tour on clay. What does the rest of the tour mean? :lol:

And Nadal has been around for three years, why didn't he win big titles on clay before then?

maybe coz there are a couple of players better on clay than roger? i'd say guga dominated on clay, nadal dominated on clay, roger hmmmmm.....

saniapower
Nov 17th, 2007, 09:12 PM
He does not dominate on clay and never has dominated. The only meaningful title on clay that he has is Hamburg which has a low bounce. I believe he won it 4 times, not 5 as you said.

u have to eat ur words in 2008. just wait. Federer already defeated Nadal 6-2,6-0 in Hamburg. Forget the bounce.

If someone can win 95% matches on clay then it is excellent. and mind u it's not been said here that he dominated nadal on clay, he just dominated rest of the ATP on clay. thats very simple logic.

Matt01
Nov 17th, 2007, 09:16 PM
u have to eat ur words in 2008. just wait. Federer already defeated Nadal 6-2,6-0 in Hamburg. Forget the bounce.

If someone can win 95% matches on clay then it is excellent. and mind u it's not been said here that he dominated nadal on clay, he just dominated rest of the ATP on clay. thats very simple logic.


1. Federer beat Nadal 2:6, 6:2, 6:0 in 3 sets.

2. Maybe Federer is dominating the rest of the tour on clay, but that is quite useless when he isn't winning the big titles (other than Hamburg) on that surface.

cecilija
Nov 17th, 2007, 09:19 PM
u have to eat ur words in 2008. just wait. Federer already defeated Nadal 6-2,6-0 in Hamburg. Forget the bounce.

If someone can win 95% matches on clay then it is excellent. and mind u it's not been said here that he dominated nadal on clay, he just dominated rest of the ATP on clay. thats very simple logic.

Larf, I am talking about present. It was said that he dominates on clay which is factually incorrect. So far Federer hasn't won RG, MC or Rome. Therefore he is not a great on clay.

I should know better than to argue with a Fedtard :tape:

cecilija
Nov 17th, 2007, 09:26 PM
1. Federer beat Nadal 2:6, 6:2, 6:0 in 3 sets.

2. Maybe Federer is dominating the rest of the tour on clay, but that is quite useless when he isn't winning the big titles (other than Hamburg) on that surface.

Not to be pernickety or anything, but he isn't dominating the rest of the tour either. He was thrashed by Volandri this year, lost to Gasquet a couple of years ago and lucked out against Nalbandian, who was beating him before he got injured.

terjw
Nov 17th, 2007, 09:35 PM
It's quite simple really:

Federer has dominated the tour and been the undisputed #1 for 4 consecutive years now.

Justine has dominated the tour this year and effectively been undisputed #1 throughout this year - that's one year (ignoring the first few weeks).

Whether 2007 is a slightly better year for Justine than Federer is neither here nor there. The same with all this nonsense about Justine's problems winning the title at Wimbledon and Federer's problems with Nadal on clay.

Justine just needs to go on to match the number of years of dominance Federer has - whether or not she wins Wimbledon - and then we can say that she is the Federer of the WTA.

Watching
Nov 17th, 2007, 09:47 PM
Not to be pernickety or anything, but he isn't dominating the rest of the tour either. He was thrashed by Volandri this year, lost to Gasquet a couple of years ago and lucked out against Nalbandian, who was beating him before he got injured.

This is one of the stupidest posts I have seen. Sorry I know this is WTAWorld but as a Fed fan I have to say you cannot say Federer isn't dominating the tour. He's allowed to lose the odd time.

Volandri/Gasquet losses are rare and there is only Nadal to stop him on clay....that's it - thats domination.

Back on topic Justine plays nothing like Federer. So yeh they are both all court players and have single handed backhands but if you watch them they are nothing alike.

She is not dominating over as long a period as Federer but even I have to say her record this year has been very close.

cecilija
Nov 17th, 2007, 09:52 PM
This is one of the stupidest posts I have seen. Sorry I know this is WTAWorld but as a Fed fan I have to say you cannot say Federer isn't dominating the tour. He's allowed to lose the odd time.

Volandri/Gasquet losses are rare and there is only Nadal to stop him on clay....that's it - thats domination.

Back on topic Justine plays nothing like Federer. So yeh they are both all court players and have single handed backhands but if you watch them they are nothing alike.

She is not dominating over as long a period as Federer but even I have to say her record this year has been very close.

Oh dear. Not dominating on clay, I said. He clearly isn't and never has.

Lunaris
Nov 17th, 2007, 09:55 PM
My opinion on this is such (may be wrong of course and I would be glad if someone with better tennis knowledge than me could point out potential flaws of this logic, it's just a theory): Federer dominates the rest of the ATP because nowadays nobody knows how to play on clay except Nadal, that's also one of the reasons why he was able to remain undefeated in 81 matches in a row on that surface, that wouldn't have happened happen 10 years ago. Everyone else plays offensive hardcourt tennis on clay, on grass, everywhere and that is Roger's domain. You know even such an exceptional claycourter like Martin Verkerk made RG final in 2003, that tells you how strong is current generation of claycourt players. Since players like Bruguera or Muster claycourt tennis is dead and buried. Even Kuerten who won RG three times wasn't your perfect example of a claycourt player. Clay also has been fastened up, giving even bigger advantage to Federer and contributing to disappearance of real claycourters. Roger is not a great claycourt player, he just benefits from the fact that only Nadal is able to use typical claycourt weapons like heavy topspin, sliding or effective kick serve. He even lost to players like Arazi or Horna in 1st round of RG in the years prior 2004 - start of his domination. Other players besides Nadal aren't at home on clay. Only few Argentinians deserve a mention but they are gone, Gaudio, Coria. Former Champion and world no.1 Ferrero hasn't been the same after his injury troubles in 2004. Costa, Mantilla, Corretja or Medvedev are long gone too.
Again I say feel free to point out any incongruousness you see. ;) :)

cecilija
Nov 17th, 2007, 10:02 PM
Completely agree Lunaris. Atp on clay these days is on the skids. Without Coria, Gaudio and even Kuerten it has really been lame. So lame that even Almagro was considered the third favourite for RG a couple of years ago :lol: That tells its own sad story. But we are going way off topic here.

There is no comparison between Henin and Federer. Game wise or career wise.

Watching
Nov 17th, 2007, 10:51 PM
My opinion on this is such (may be wrong of course and I would be glad if someone with better tennis knowledge than me could point out potential flaws of this logic, it's just a theory): Federer dominates the rest of the ATP because nowadays nobody knows how to play on clay except Nadal, that's also one of the reasons why he was able to remain undefeated in 81 matches in a row on that surface, that wouldn't have happened happen 10 years ago. Everyone else plays offensive hardcourt tennis on clay, on grass, everywhere and that is Roger's domain. You know even such an exceptional claycourter like Martin Verkerk made RG final in 2003, that tells you how strong is current generation of claycourt players. Since players like Bruguera or Muster claycourt tennis is dead and buried. Even Kuerten who won RG three times wasn't your perfect example of a claycourt player. Clay also has been fastened up, giving even bigger advantage to Federer and contributing to disappearance of real claycourters. Roger is not a great claycourt player, he just benefits from the fact that only Nadal is able to use typical claycourt weapons like heavy topspin, sliding or effective kick serve. He even lost to players like Arazi or Horna in 1st round of RG in the years prior 2004 - start of his domination. Other players besides Nadal aren't at home on clay. Only few Argentinians deserve a mention but they are gone, Gaudio, Coria. Former Champion and world no.1 Ferrero hasn't been the same after his injury troubles in 2004. Costa, Mantilla, Corretja or Medvedev are long gone too.
Again I say feel free to point out any incongruousness you see. ;) :)

You are utterly wrong. Clay court tennis is so deep it's unbeleivable. Nadal is able to win 81 matches in a row because he is super-human on that surface even better than Justine. He is an all time great on Clay perhaps with a stake as best claycourter EVER!

Then you had Guga, Coria and Kuerten up to 03/04 these days you have Nalbandian who is ace on clay, Ferrer, Davydenko (underrated claycourt player), Robredo. Djokovic is useful on clay too with his all court game, Gonzalez, Canas, Moya, Chela, Hewitt, Monaco, Almagro...the list goes on.

Roger is a phenomenal claycourt player too only losing to Nadal with such stiff competition. To say otherwise is stupid, you don't even have to look at the great competition just watch a match of his on clay and you will see how good he is on the surface.

So yeh he isn't dominating clay, Nadal is. But he sure as hell is beating the rest of the field apart from the odd freak loss i.e. splitting with Roche this year resulting in the loss to Volandri and a loss to Gasquet having held MP's. That's since 2004!

Kart
Nov 17th, 2007, 11:46 PM
Federer edges closer and closer to a legitimate claim on being the greatest mens tennis player of all time.

Justine is nowhere near that.

That said, Justine eclipses Federer in Paris - completely out of sight and that's no mean feat.

I don't see much of a parallel between them, except that they both hit with one hand on the backhand.

Apoleb
Nov 18th, 2007, 12:13 AM
It's quite simple really:

Federer has dominated the tour and been the undisputed #1 for 4 consecutive years now.

Justine has dominated the tour this year and effectively been undisputed #1 throughout this year - that's one year (ignoring the first few weeks).

Whether 2007 is a slightly better year for Justine than Federer is neither here nor there. The same with all this nonsense about Justine's problems winning the title at Wimbledon and Federer's problems with Nadal on clay.

Justine just needs to go on to match the number of years of dominance Federer has - whether or not she wins Wimbledon - and then we can say that she is the Federer of the WTA.

Oh God. At least there's one poster who is making sense in this thread. :o

moby
Nov 18th, 2007, 12:24 AM
Of course Justine is not the Federer of the WTA.
She gives away 4 to 8 inches in height to her chief rivals. :shrug:
She doesn't have a "perfect" life off-court.
She isn't supremely self-confident (or arrogant, depending on how you look at it).

Vegan
Nov 18th, 2007, 12:32 AM
My brother did say that she's the woman version of Federer. I don't know if he's just referring game-wise though.

Sammy 4 eva!!!
Nov 18th, 2007, 01:15 AM
Justine is alot different!

chuvack
Nov 18th, 2007, 08:09 AM
Not to be pernickety or anything, but he isn't dominating the rest of the tour either. He was thrashed by Volandri this year, lost to Gasquet a couple of years ago and lucked out against Nalbandian, who was beating him before he got injured.


listen moron FEDS is the GREATEST ever. He dominates on EVERY surface since middle of 2004, and yes on CLAY too. Three years dominance on clay 05 06 07. Admit it you are just a hater grabbing at the most flimsy straws. He lost a couple of matches in the last 2 years but none that counted save the RG matches and the TMS final in '05. You are so desperate and you hate Roger so badly but he just keeps on putting it in your face, he's the greatest, deal with it.

cheo23
Nov 18th, 2007, 08:10 AM
Justine is not the Federer of WTA by any means. Federer is the Best male tennis player ever born n will remain the best for ever and ever. If federer takes it seriously n gives his best nobody on earth can beat him. The fact is that in the nonslams sometimes due to fatigue he cant give his best n thats why he is vulnerable in the nonslams. But federer reserves his best for the slams n nobody can challenge him n he will surely win the FO oneday. Remember he has already defeated Nadal on Clay.
How Henin can be the Federer of WTA who cant win the Wimbledon? :lol: If Sharapova was fully fit she would have defeated her in the YEC final. I think Venus is far better than Henin on grass

And Sania is WHoo????????????????? Your momma???????

eck
Nov 18th, 2007, 08:47 AM
:spit:

die_wahrheit
Nov 18th, 2007, 10:07 AM
Stay serious.
Federer is comparable with Graf, Navratiloav
Henin is comparable with Wilander, Courier, Rosewall

sportywoman
Nov 18th, 2007, 10:22 AM
Stay serious.
Federer is comparable with Graf, Navratiloav
Henin is comparable with Wilander, Courier, Rosewall

Federer is one of the greatest in man's tennis but he isn't in par with Graf or Navratilova!

Graf has been dominant for 10 years and has won the 4 slams more than once, including the grand slam.

Until Fed do the same and stays consistently supra dominant for a decade he can't be in par with Graf and/or Navratilova !

There is no equivalent to Graf or Navratilova in men's tennis.

spencercarlos
Nov 18th, 2007, 10:24 AM
Federer is one of the greatest in man's tennis but he isn't in par with Graf or Navaratilova!

Graf has been dominant for 10 years and has won the 4 slams more than once.

Until Fed do the same and stays consitently supra domaniant for a decade he can't be in par with Graf and/or Navratilova !
So Sampras is not up there with Graf´s status?

serenus_2k8
Nov 18th, 2007, 10:27 AM
Urgh end this discussion! Justine has had a good little run...yay go her!
But she probably wont keep it up IMO...Fed is a billion times better!

sportywoman
Nov 18th, 2007, 10:30 AM
So Sampras is not up there with Graf´s status?

He is closer but hasn't accomplished the lengthy dominance that Graf has. He is closed to Navratilova.

Neptune
Nov 18th, 2007, 10:31 AM
I don't know why people need to compare Federer and Henin, or Federer with Graf.To be honest, IMO this is ridiculous.The Atp and the Wta are totally different, this is NOT the same level.This discussion is pointless.

die_wahrheit
Nov 18th, 2007, 10:39 AM
Federer is one of the greatest in man's tennis but he isn't in par with Graf or Navratilova!

Graf has been dominant for 10 years and has won the 4 slams more than once, including the grand slam.

Until Fed do the same and stays consistently supra dominant for a decade he can't be in par with Graf and/or Navratilova !

There is no equivalent to Graf or Navratilova in men's tennis.

There's much more competition in mens' tennis. Federer is at this moment already comparable with Graf/Navratilova.
He's not named the best female player ever, he 's on the way to the best player ever. That's the difference.

thrust
Nov 18th, 2007, 01:52 PM
Stay serious.
Federer is comparable with Graf, Navratiloav
Henin is comparable with Wilander, Courier, Rosewall

Wilander and Courier are NOT in the same league as Rosewall! Ken was winning Slams in his late 30^s and others in his forties. He was the top Pro for at least 5 years beating the likes of Gonzalez, Laver, Hoad, etc.. He dominated Laver the first few years Rod was on the pro tour. If one combines the Pro Slams, before 1968 and the Open Era Slams, Rosewall has 23 Slams while Laver has 19. Rosewall is the most underrated great champion of all time.

thrust
Nov 18th, 2007, 02:00 PM
COMPROMISE? Statistically, Justine in 2007 is better than Serena in 2002. Serena, in 2002, was more dominant in the manner in which she won. All in all two great years for two great champions! Again, when the experts compare Justine with Roger they are talking about their styles, not accomplishments. By the way, how many French Opens has Roger won?

Kworb
Nov 18th, 2007, 02:01 PM
Henin is the best player ever on the women's tour
Federer is the best player ever on the men's tour

That is the only factual comparison you can make

Princeza
Nov 18th, 2007, 02:05 PM
And Sania is WHoo????????????????? Your momma???????

:haha: Get It TogeTher Cheo!!!!!!! YoU'Re Da BeSt :rocker:

saniapower
Jan 22nd, 2008, 09:41 AM
It's been proved today beyond doubt that Justin :haha: is not the Federer of wta. Federer never loses this fashion, 6-0 :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Matt01
Jan 22nd, 2008, 12:55 PM
It's been proved today beyond doubt that Justin :haha: is not the Federer of wta. Federer never loses this fashion, 6-0 :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:


You're pathetic.

eck
Jan 22nd, 2008, 12:55 PM
At least she doesn't hit brainless tennis like Sania (on most days :help:)

mariahdg
Jan 22nd, 2008, 01:13 PM
The one thing of Justine can prove
she doesn't need to super lozenges:shrug:

FrOzon
Jan 22nd, 2008, 01:16 PM
Justine is not the Federer of WTA by any means. Federer is the Best male tennis player ever born n will remain the best for ever and ever. If federer takes it seriously n gives his best nobody on earth can beat him. The fact is that in the nonslams sometimes due to fatigue he cant give his best n thats why he is vulnerable in the nonslams. But federer reserves his best for the slams n nobody can challenge him n he will surely win the FO oneday. Remember he has already defeated Nadal on Clay.
How Henin can be the Federer of WTA who cant win the Wimbledon? :lol: If Sharapova was fully fit she would have defeated her in the YEC final. I think Venus is far better than Henin on grass

Pathetic! :rolleyes:
Federer never won Roland Garros, so what?

Jasmin
Jan 22nd, 2008, 03:35 PM
Well Justine is very talented and I just feel she's her own person. I just never thought she was like Federer at all.

Marshmallow
Jan 22nd, 2008, 03:37 PM
Justine doesnt have a rival because they're all injured/inconsistent/out of shape(Sharapova, Mauresmo, Venus, Serena).

I don't see why anyone tries to compare the two. There is no comparison.

Not much left to say really. :worship:

starin
Jan 22nd, 2008, 04:26 PM
:o at people who said Justine was more dominant than Federer last year. Some complete BS. Justine was never the Federer of the WTA. She was, however, the most dominant player on the WTA since Serena in 2002(FO)-2003 (Wimbly). Kind of a shocking way to lose that dominance. 64 60 is a beatdown. But I will give Justine the benefit of the doubt and this might just be a fluke cuz of pressure and maybe bad memories about retiring in a slam final here. :confused: Iono but Sharapvoa was absolutely on fire yesterday.

Tamus
Jan 22nd, 2008, 04:33 PM
:o at people who said Justine was more dominant than Federer last year.

She was :secret: There is a reason that Federer's #1 ranking is in jeopardy at this tournament and Justine's wasn't.

SIN DIOS NI LEY
Jan 22nd, 2008, 04:37 PM
Federer sucks

starin
Jan 22nd, 2008, 04:39 PM
She was :secret: There is a reason that Federer's #1 ranking is in jeopardy at this tournament and Justine's wasn't.

I'm sorrry but making 4 slam finals and winning 3 and the YEC for the Men is more dominant than winning 2 slams and making 1 SF. The reason Fed. is in danger of losing his no.1 ranking is because there is a very strong no. 2 ranked player playing. You can't compare Nadal to Kuznetsova...get real.

Danči Dementia
Jan 22nd, 2008, 04:46 PM
Well Justine is not the Federer of WTA.............she may not be the female Federer but she is y FAR the most dominant women......what she just lost this match and now everyone is like OMG!!! she is not as good as we all thougth....come on!!:rolleyes: that is pathetic....
And honestly I think that Federer´s dominance is about to come to an end...Ndal and Djokovic are getting closer and closer to him.....and I really hope he will be dethroned very very soon.

I honestly hate Justine....I can´t stand her after what she did in AO final against Momo....but I have to admit that Justine´s game is better than anyone else game.......she just had a bad day yesterday....I would pay to see Sharapova beating her in Roland Garros...

Justine is going to win at leats one Slam this year......or two...get over it....she is the best

Danči Dementia
Jan 22nd, 2008, 04:49 PM
I'm sorrry but making 4 slam finals and winning 3 and the YEC for the Men is more dominant than winning 2 slams and making 1 SF. The reason Fed. is in danger of losing his no.1 ranking is because there is a very strong no. 2 ranked player playing. You can't compare Nadal to Kuznetsova...get real.

No shit :eek::eek:........................................ ..........:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Tamus
Jan 22nd, 2008, 04:54 PM
I'm sorrry but making 4 slam finals and winning 3 and the YEC for the Men is more dominant than winning 2 slams and making 1 SF. The reason Fed. is in danger of losing his no.1 ranking is because there is a very strong no. 2 ranked player playing. You can't compare Nadal to Kuznetsova...get real.

Yeah, he was more dominant in slams, but the whole year isn't 4 tournaments long. I mean, look at some of Fed's results in the non-slams and it's really not very dominant. Maybe Federer only gears up for the big tournaments, but part of dominating is winning all the time, not just at the most important parts. Federer may have had the more impressive year last year, but that doesn't mean it was more dominant.

P.S. I like Roger a lot more than I like Justine, and I think there's no question he is a greater player than Justine, but I'm just calling it how I see it.

SAEKeithSerena
Jan 22nd, 2008, 04:57 PM
justine had some amazing accomplishments, but she was NEVER the "federer" of the wta tour. there isn't one and there won't be, at least not now.

SAEKeithSerena
Jan 22nd, 2008, 04:59 PM
Federer sucks



and so do you for making that statement for a legend that's won 12 slams and is only 26...:help:

goldenlox
Jan 25th, 2008, 08:25 PM
Over the last 12 months, it's easy to make a case that Justine has been more dominant than Federer.
But they both have work to do this year.

Chilltownie
Jan 25th, 2008, 08:59 PM
Until Fed wins the French, how can he be considered best ever?

Matt01
Jan 25th, 2008, 09:01 PM
Until Fed wins the French, how can he be considered best ever?


Why not? You don't have to win one specific tournament to be the best.

Chilltownie
Jan 25th, 2008, 09:09 PM
I consider the best ever to have to win all majors.

goldenlox
Jan 25th, 2008, 09:19 PM
Nobody has won them on more than 2 surfaces except Agassi. Is he the best ever? Connors won a major on clay, but not the FO.
Budge and Laver never won a hardcourt major.

Uranium
Jan 25th, 2008, 09:23 PM
Nobody has won them on more than 2 surfaces except Agassi. Is he the best ever? Connors won a major on clay, but not the FO.
Budge and Laver never won a hardcourt major.

Are you talking only about men because Graf i believe did too.
but for them to be great and LEGENDARY they need to overcome their weakness and win their worst slam.

Lunaris
Jan 25th, 2008, 09:24 PM
Nobody has won them on more than 2 surfaces except Agassi. Is he the best ever? Connors won a major on clay, but not the FO.
Budge and Laver never won a hardcourt major.
Perhaps because there wasn't any hardcourt major in their era?

Why not? You don't have to win one specific tournament to be the best.
Arguable, everyone has different criteria.

goldenlox
Jan 25th, 2008, 09:24 PM
Sampras never got to a FO final.
No one has a career slam on grass, clay and hardcourt except Agassi. I think that's true.
I wasn't around for Budge and Laver and old time tennis.

nikita771
Jan 25th, 2008, 09:34 PM
Roger Federer is already a legend. If he retired today, he still will be talked about for years. He will fall into the same category as Navratilova, Graf, and the other greats who have left their mark on tennis. He doesn't have to win the French to prove his greatness.

goldenlox
Jan 25th, 2008, 09:42 PM
He has to pass Sampras, or else he will be lumped together with Borg, as having a short period of domination.

AcesHigh
Jan 25th, 2008, 09:55 PM
He has to pass Sampras, or else he will be lumped together with Borg, as having a short period of domination.

Some people already consider Borg the greatest ever. Sampras is not the clearcut GOAT. It's very debatable.

Fed needs to either..
A) Win RG
-or-
B) Win 15th

and he probably would lock up the title of GOAT or at least greatest player of the Open Era.

Donny
Jan 25th, 2008, 09:56 PM
Over the last 12 months, it's easy to make a case that Justine has been more dominant than Federer.
But they both have work to do this year.

Federer won three majors in the last twelve months, and never gave up the number one ranking. Justine won two, and lost number one to Sharapova.

goldenlox
Jan 25th, 2008, 09:58 PM
Federer has 2 of the last 4 majors, like Justine.

Lunaris
Jan 25th, 2008, 10:04 PM
I think it will be interesting to see how Justine and Fed bounce back after these losses to their biggest challengers.

COSAT
Jan 25th, 2008, 10:07 PM
Justine is a great player but she is not a legend as Federer is/will be.

Oizo
Jan 25th, 2008, 10:22 PM
It's of course a question of view:

Pete Sampras is considered the best ever, because of his record number of weeks at Number 1 and his record win of 14 grand-slams. Ok, he has not an olympic Gold Medal and not the French Open. If you take Agassi, who has them, you can put him as the greatest ever, but then people would point again on Sampras' records and youre choice might be again only for yourself correct.

What makes a player the greatest ever? Of course winning all majors and being a record of weeks on the #1 spot are accepted criterias. I guess because of the importance of the Grand Slams, they are seen as the best way to chose the greatest ever. To win 14 slams is definitely gonna put you up in the Tennis Olymp. Are you the greatest ever? You surerly belong to them.

As for Roger: His time is running out to win the French Open. This year is probably his last chance to do so. He can only hope Djokovic and Nadal meet in the semis and play over 5 hours and then are dead for a win in the final. If Roger can win the French Open he will take Sampras' crown. If he wins more than 2 slams and has a record of 15 grand-slam titles he will definitely be considered the greatest player ever.

goldenslam888
Jan 25th, 2008, 10:47 PM
no, justine isn't a has been. lol.

i think the comparison comes from there allcourt playing style.

Peterk07
Jan 26th, 2008, 12:37 AM
Greatest of all time is a very suvjective title. For me, it has nothing to do with the records, it is rather an image of a great player, who - in addition to great successes - had impact on the game, had unique and respectful personality, had long carreer, etc. A kind of full package. Connors, for example. For me he is more of a GOAT than Sampras or Agassi. (They are candidates for the most likeable title in my book. :) ).

Federer? He is a perfect racing machine, not a GOAT character. But I'm rooting for him, because I like his calm figure. (I hate celebrities who cannot live without the constant attention of yellow press.)

Henin? I wish my favourite girl (Agi Szavay) would have a similar carreer, but she is nowhere near to be GOAT and even Federer. But she is - using a pro box term - an "undisputed champion".

sorceress
Jan 26th, 2008, 12:42 AM
They shouldn't be compared.

-VSR-
Jan 26th, 2008, 12:47 AM
Oh please. The womens game is too open, there is no Federer on the womens tour. The women are too inconsistent and there are too many women who could win on any day.

saniapower
Apr 2nd, 2008, 06:39 PM
so 2008 has been a disaster for Justine so far and also for Federer to some extent but i think Federer will deliver the good very soon but i've doubt if Justine can overcome these shock defeats.

homogenius
Apr 4th, 2008, 02:07 AM
Indeed. She's not nearly as boring, and she doesn't own a cow.

:haha:


bump

homogenius
Apr 4th, 2008, 02:08 AM
so 2008 has been a disaster for Justine so far and also for Federer to some extent but i think Federer will deliver the good very soon but i've doubt if Justine can overcome these shock defeats.

2008 is much more a disaster for Federer than for Henin.When you lose to Fish or Roddick...

SIN DIOS NI LEY
Apr 4th, 2008, 02:25 AM
Fedmug won't win Grand Slam tournaments this year , Justine will win Roland Garros at least . Mark my words

NeeemZ
Apr 4th, 2008, 03:28 AM
so 2008 has been a disaster for Justine so far and also for Federer to some extent but i think Federer will deliver the good very soon but i've doubt if Justine can overcome these shock defeats.

Granted, Justine has not had the best of starts but she already has 2 titles this year. Federer has zilch. I don't think he has ever gone 4 straight tournaments where he hasn't won the tournament, OR even 4 straight tournaments where he hasn't made the final.

Tamus
Apr 4th, 2008, 03:36 AM
2008 is much more a disaster for Federer than for Henin.When you lose to Fish or Roddick...

Fish and Roddick :help:

NeeemZ
Apr 4th, 2008, 03:42 AM
If my memory serves correctly, this is Roddick's first victory in around 10 matches against Federer.

Even though I am not a particular fan of Federer, it just seems so weird to see him lose ANY match, even against Nadal on clay.

Kworb
Apr 4th, 2008, 08:07 AM
Roddick beating Federer is like Serena beating Henin... Henin is definitely the Federer of the WTA

Talula
Apr 4th, 2008, 09:04 AM
Andy Roddick has beaten all the top 3 mens players this year. He's on form. His serve is sensational. Having said that, Federer does need to watch out now. Once motivation is lost it's hard to get back.

Slutati
Apr 4th, 2008, 09:26 AM
They are both sucking this year.I can't decide who's worse.Justine had some bad losses, but Federer lost to Roddick:rolls::rolls:Now, that's just pathetic.

FedererBulgaria
Apr 4th, 2008, 09:28 AM
:confused:They are both sucking this year.I can't decide who's worse.Justine had some bad losses, but Federer lost to Roddick:rolls::rolls:Now, that's just pathetic.

Yeah,but Roddick beat №1,2,3 THIS YEAR!!!!

Slutiana
Apr 4th, 2008, 09:30 AM
Yes she is! :lol:

Slutati
Apr 4th, 2008, 09:33 AM
Yeah, he beat Nadal and Djokovic and I say good for him, although I can't stand him.But c'mon Federer:help:Federer is in a league of his own, I never saw it coming, even though he hasn't been playing that well this year, but he OWNS Roddick.Roger was really passive.And now the clay season is here and he hasn't won a tournament:eek:He needs to get his shit together

BrianII
Apr 4th, 2008, 09:44 AM
To me its like comparing apples to oranges, and even then instead of making any true comparison..these threads quickly degenreate into the usual justine versus williams versus sharapova etc type argument when actually belittling justine also belittles her major rivals. Justine is the Justine of the female tour and thats good enough and very impressive (More men should try being the Justine of the men tour ...not the other way around)
. If we are going to compare justine and Fed we should also compare his rivels with hers and then it becomes apparent that there really aren't any other male players with the stature or accomplishments of of the williamses or hingis or davenport or even kim.Aside from nadal 3 slams on the same surface, Andre was well passed 30 we are left with players like hewit and safin who I don't even think compare favourably with Sharapova and Mauresmo let alone Venus Serena or lindsay...you can make the argument the men tour is overall deeper but it seems to me at the very top the Womens tour is much deeper ..ie more players who know how to get it done ,think they are the best when they are on their game and have some stats to back it up.Many times I'm more impressed with justine than federer even though she will never be considered as great as him ..because when there were female players as great as him graf and Nav Monica people derided the rest of the womens tour as being unable to compete and thus to some exent dimished the exploits of these champions as being the result of a lack of depth. strange that the same never seems to apply to federer . Graf/ Monica competed with the likes of aranxta, Mandikova, sabatini,conchita and that after the likes of evert Navratilova and on the other side for some time with the Hingis /Williamses/ Davenport and then of course each other. if I liken Aranxta to nadal on the mens tour who would be equivalent to Monica ( Assuming Graf = Federer) is federer really that great or are his rivals just simply weak.

goldenlox
Apr 4th, 2008, 10:31 AM
It is strange they went from great POY years in 2007 to playing way below the other top 3 or 4 at the same time.
I think Justine has a better chance to pull it together. Federer looks real bad to me. Those lame exos with old Pete have fucked up his mind.

ce
Apr 4th, 2008, 10:37 AM
Federer :haha:
Justine :haha:

:p

saniapower
May 15th, 2008, 11:20 AM
so now Justine will never become the Federer of wta :p

eck
May 15th, 2008, 11:22 AM
Or Federer will never be the Justine of ATP :)

saniapower
May 15th, 2008, 11:23 AM
Or Federer will never be the Justine of ATP :)
:lol: sorry u r pathetic!

eck
May 15th, 2008, 11:25 AM
u 2.